COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Koontz, Bray and Senior Judge Hodges 

SOHO CENTER 

AND 

TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 2625-94-2 PER CURIAM 

 JUNE 27, 1995 

MARY GRACE 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' 

COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (William Orr Smith, on brief), for appellants. 

 (Sebastian K. D. Graber, on brief), for appellee. 

 Soho Center and its insurer (hereinafter collectively 

referred to as "employer") contend that the Workers' Compensation 

Commission erred in (1) finding that Mary Grace proved that she 

sustained an injury by accident arising out of and in the course 

of her employment on October 28, 1993; and (2) relying upon the 

June 22, 1994 opinion of Dr. Kenneth Haas, the treating 

chiropractor. Upon reviewing the record and the briefs of the 

parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. 

Accordingly, we summarily affirm the commission's decision. Rule 

5A:27. 

 "In order to carry [her] burden of proving an 'injury by 

accident,' a claimant must prove that the cause of [her] injury 

was an identifiable incident or sudden precipitating event and 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
 2 

that it resulted in an obvious sudden mechanical or structural 

change in the body." Morris v. Morris, 238 Va. 578, 589, 385 

S.E.2d 858, 865 (1989). 

 On appellate review, we construe the evidence in the light 

most favorable to the party prevailing below. R.G. Moore Bldg. 

Corp. v. Mullins, 10 Va. App. 211, 212, 390 S.E.2d 788, 788 

(1990). Factual findings made by the commission will be upheld 

on appeal if supported by credible evidence. James v. Capitol 

Steel Constr. Co., 8 Va. App. 512, 515, 382 S.E.2d 487, 488 

(1989). 

 The claimant, who worked as a supervisor of young children 

at the employer's child care center, testified that at 

approximately 10:00 a.m. on October 28, 1993, a twenty-five to 

thirty-pound child jumped unexpectedly into her lap, hitting the 

claimant's shoulder and head. The claimant "felt something," but 

ignored it and continued working. Later in the afternoon, she 

moved some play equipment. That evening she had a stiff neck, 

and the next morning she felt "intense pain" in her neck and 

upper back. She telephoned the director of the center and 

informed her that she was hurt "from one of two things that had 

happened at work." 

 Fay Hurst, the employer's office manager, testified that on 

October 28, 1993, she saw the child run a couple of steps and 

jump into the claimant's lap. Hurst saw the claimant jump back 

in surprise, because she had been looking at Hurst. 
 3 

 On October 29, 1993, the claimant sought medical treatment 

for low back and neck pain from Dr. Kenneth Haas, a chiropractor. 

 She reported a history of "onset 10/28/93-child jumped on her 

then moved some heavy play equipment." In a June 22, 1994 

letter, Dr. Haas opined that the claimant's injury was caused by 

trauma and not lifting. He based this opinion on the location of 

the subluxation, namely a misalignment at T1-T3. He stated that 

it was "not uncommon for pain from this type of injury to 

manifest itself days after the injury," and that he believed the 

claimant's "injury [was] consistent with her report relating to 

trauma she received from a child jumping on her." 

 In awarding compensation to the claimant, the commission 

accepted her testimony, which was corroborated in part by Hurst, 

to find that the claimant established an identifiable incident 

when the child jumped on her, causing her to feel "something." 

The commission accepted Dr. Haas' opinion concerning causation, 

finding that he based his opinion upon the history given to him 

by the claimant of a child jumping on her lap. 

 The testimony of the claimant and Hurst provides credible 

evidence to support the commission's finding of an identifiable 

incident. Moreover, the commission did not err in relying upon 

Dr. Haas' opinion, which supported a causal link between the 

claimant's injury and the incident of the child jumping on her 

lap. See Board of Supervisors v. Martin, 3 Va. App. 139, 144, 

348 S.E.2d 540, 542 (1986). The history of the October 28, 1993 
 4 

incident provided to Dr. Haas by the claimant was relied upon by 

the commission as a basis for Dr. Haas' opinion, not as a means 

of determining how the accident occurred. Finally, the fact that 

the claimant did not feel pain until later in the evening on 

October 28, 1993 is not fatal to her claim. "Morris did not 

require a showing of immediate onset of the symptoms of an 

injury." Hercules, Inc. v. Gunther, 13 Va. App. 357, 364 n.2, 

412 S.E.2d 185, 189 n.2 (1991). 

 For these reasons, we affirm the commission's decision. 

 Affirmed.